🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,